This is all well and good, but I don't think that there's anything about this particular Freeman performance that demands attention. It's no more inspired than his work in Se7en or Shawshank Redemption, both of which I thought were better films. What would I have given him the award for? Glory, probably. But I imagine everyone has their favorite Freeman performance. Perhaps "Easy Reader" on The Electric Company?

On the other hand, there is something distinct and impressive about Church's turn in Sideways. And maybe that's because all I have to compare it to is his work on Wings and Ned & Stacey (which, taken together, demonstrate considerable range). But I feel like he gave a more nuanced performance with greater diversity. Part of that's the role. It's less of a stock character than Freeman's (yes Freeman plays the hell out of it, but it's still a stock character). I feel it has more dimension. So, though I'm all about showing Freeman the love, taking these two isolated performances toe-to-toe, I gotta go with Lowell.

(Watch me reverse my position on giving out awards simply for an artist's career in about ten paragraphs. You can probably already guess for whom.)

BEST ACTRESS

Annette Bening - Being Julia
Catalina Sandino Moreno - Maria Full of Grace
Imelda Staunton - Vera Drake
Hilary Swank - Million Dollar Baby
Kate Winslet - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Will Win: Hilary Swank
Should Win: Hilary Swank

Back in '99, Swank took Bening for the gold, Boys Don't Cry v. American Beauty. By the way, the other actresses up that year? Janet McTeer for Tumbleweeds, Julianne Moore for The End of the Affair, and Meryl Streep for, oi, Music of the Heart. Remember those performances? Me, neither.

Anyway, I could give you a whole song and dance about who won what leading up to this (mostly Swank, a little Bening, a little Staunton), but the bottom line is if Swank can beat Bening in a movie that everybody saw (American Beauty), she can definitely beat her in a movie that nobody saw (Being Julia).

Now, you could make the same argument in reverse, but here's the thing. When Swank beat Bening with a film that made $119mil less than Bening's, she did it playing a woman playing a man. You didn't need to see the movie to know that if she did it well enough to get a nomination, it must've been impressive. This time, Bening's film made $39mil less than Swank's (so far), but all anyone knows about it if they haven't seen it (if they know anything) is that she plays an actress. If she does that well enough to get nominated, um...good for her!

Now, Staunton has considerable critical momentum going into this. Her performance actually got more year-end accolades than Swank's. Her film got more Oscar heat than anyone expected. Actress? Sure. But Screenplay? Director? Oscar takes this film seriously, which leads me to believe that the issue at stake isn't wholly political (for those of you keeping score, Staunton plays an abortionist). If it were, there'd be more of an attempt to marginalize the film. No, I think the issue again is visibility. Nobody saw it. Boys Don't Cry made $11mil. Vera Drake, $2.8mil. That may not seem like much of a difference, but in Indiewood, it kind of is. Monster, another "small" indie that generated an Oscar for it's lead, had made $23mil by the time the awards were presented. Money/visibility makes a difference.